religions Article Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience in the Arabic Countries Facing Globalization and Migration Raoudha Elguédri 1,* and Mohamed Cherif Ferjani 2 1 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tunis, 1007 Tunis, Tunisia 2 Islamology and Political Science, University of Lyon, 69007 Lyon, France; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 22 August 2017; Accepted: 9 October 2017; Published: 18 October 2017 Abstract: Muslim societies are facing the new challenges of cultural and religious diversity. They are experiencing migratory phenomena, or because they are countries of immigration (such as in the Persian Gulf monarchies and emirates) or countries that are becoming a new destination of migrants (such as Morocco and other North African nations). These challenges are increasingly urgent due to the effects of other globalization vectors such as new communication technologies that cross all boundaries and foster unprecedented conversions. The purpose of this contribution is limited to the religious aspect of the new forms of diversification faced by Muslim countries. The goal is to analyze to what extent this process biases traditional ways of managing religious diversity. Keywords: globalization; migrations; Arabic countries; Islam 1. Introduction Globalization has made the management of cultural and religious diversity more complex in contemporary societies. Whereas globalization seeks to ensure the free movement of two factors of production—goods and capital—it limits the free movement of the third factor—people—except when they are indispensable to profit maximization. Nevertheless, it is not possible to block mass migration for many other reasons (economic crisis, wars, climate change, epidemics, and other ecological disasters). In many cases, advancements in science and technology cannot prevent many of these phenomena. On the contrary, from time to time, they generate their own devastating effects. Nation-state security strategies, international policies driven by human rights, or racism or xenophobia have all failed to stem migration. Fear, despair, and misery drive millions of people from their homelands, risking their lives in the hope of taking refuge in a land where they can enjoy a better life. These developments, which are often unwanted, unexpected, and uncontrollable, are upsetting the societies to which migrants move. These societies become increasingly cosmopolitan. People of different origins, languages, traditions, religions, cultures, and narratives are condemned to live more or less together, mixing in public spaces or in places to live and joint activities, or alternatively, in segregated communities closed to others, protecting their lifestyles, cultural models, and exclusive spaces. Previously separated stories intermingle. Values systems that were previously unknown are now discovered, competing within the same society. Boundaries shift or disappear altogether. The traditional ways of managing cultural and religious diversity are called into question (Saint-Blancat 2001; Lasseur and Mayrargue 2011). Muslim societies are also facing the new challenges of cultural and religious diversity. They are experiencing migratory phenomena because they are countries of immigration, as in the Persian Gulf monarchies and emirates, or countries that are becoming migratory routes of passage, such as Morocco and other North African nations. Dealing with these challenges is becoming increasingly urgent due to effects of other globalization vectors such as new communication technologies that cross all boundaries Religions 2017, 8, 229; doi:10.3390/rel8100229 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Religions 2017, 8, 229 2 of 12 and foster unprecedented religious conversions. The purpose of this paper is to focus on the religious aspect of the new forms of diversification faced by Muslim countries. Our goal is to analyze to what extent this process impacts traditional ways of managing religious diversity. We begin by recalling the specificity and development of Muslim traditional rule regarding the status of religious minorities and freedom of conscience (Ferjani 1996, 2002, 2005). Then, we describe how the impact of migration and globalization affects the societies shaped by Islamic civilization 2. The Traditional Status of Non-Muslims At the outset of Islam and the advent of the first community of Medina led by the Prophet Muhammad, Muslim societies had their religious minorities. They tried to manage relationships with those minorities in ways that were alternately and at the same time peaceful and refusing coexistence, relationships of dialogue and mistrust, recognition and discrimination, and tolerance and persecution. To understand this variety of relations, it is important to frame them in the historical conditions of their genesis and evolution. Islam emerged in a context in which the question of freedom of conscience depended—as has always been and is often these days—first of all on socio-economic and political issues, and second on the confrontations between various faith communities and within each community. Sometimes, the need for the other favored tolerance and openness. When fear of the other, intolerance, and closure prevailed, all these attitudes caused the worst attacks on freedom of conscience, including inquisition, persecution, or extermination of the infidel and heretic. The Quranic text, gradually formed between 610 and 632, reflects this alternation between intolerance and calling to fight against infidels and heretics, on the one hand, and the pursuit of tolerance and respect for freedom of conscience, on the other. As regards the first dimension, we find verses calling on the faithful to kill “the unbelievers wherever they are (Q9:5) or to “fight on the path of God the friends of Satan” (Q4:67) and those “who fight you” (Q2:190), “the infidels” (Q25:52), “the wicked and the hypocrites” (Q:9/73 and 66/9). Verses even call for the “extermination” of “those who make war against God and His Prophet, and spread the evil on earth” (Q5:33). As regard the second dimension, we remind verses like the following: “there is no compulsion in religion” (Q2:256). “Truth is from your Lord. Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve” (Q18:29). “If God wanted, he would have made a unique human community” (Q5:48; 11:18, 16:93). As regards non-believers, “You have your religion and I have mine”. The Prophet’s mission is to remember and not “force” (Q88:21). “If a polytheist grants asylum, guest him so that he can hear the word of God” (Q9:6). The attitude of the first Muslim community with regard to its Meccan opponents evolved from the search for tolerance and compromise before 622—the date of Hegira—to the will to subdue the enemy by war between 622 and 629, the date of the final conquest of Mecca by Muhammad and his followers. Later, the relationship with the people of Arabia and neighboring countries, whether they be Christians, Jews, or of other faiths, has alternately been inspired by tolerance and conflicts that sometimes went to extermination, as was the case for Jewish Tribe of Banu¯ Quraydha in Medina after 624. The Quran’s ambiguity and the founding tradition of Islam on this issue, compared to other fundamental issues, have been the basis of the differences within Muslim community. The supporters of the intolerance against infidels, hypocrites, polytheists, Satan’s friends, and the enemies of God and his Prophet (including the legitimacy to killing them) aim at rendering all religion to God. According to Abu Bakr ibn al-’Arabi, a prominent Muslim theologian, the verses (Meccan verses) concerning tolerance and respect for freedom of conscience have been abolished by the verses (Medina verses) that incite to fighting infidels and heretics by invoking the chronological priority of the latter over the former. Others Muslim scholars admit tolerance and peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims when the economic interest and political situation demand them. However, if there are no particular obstacles, it is necessary to fight for as long as the whole world does not embrace Islam or submit to the authority of Muslims by paying a particular tax (jizya). Rejecting this position, followers of tolerance and freedom Religions 2017, 8, 229 3 of 12 of conscience claim only the second category of verses. They do not ignore that there is a contradiction in the Quranic verses. They tend to relativize this contradiction as the product of specific historical circumstances, refusing to consider as a general rule the principle of intolerance against the infidels. In particular, they refute the view of Ibn al-’Arabi, arguing that the verses, which come chronologically after the verses clearly referring to the first tolerant vision of Muhammad, demand respect for the freedom of conscience. They confute the idea that the verses, which rule on specific circumstances, could abrogate those verses, which established a general rule. The verses that promote tolerance and respect for the freedom to believe or disbelieve, protect a universal value, meanwhile the so-called “fighting” verses reflect a historically contingent situation. Since the Prophet’s death (632), the conflicts between the contenders to succeed him as the head of the Muslim community had adverse consequences for tolerance and freedom of conscience. The first victims were the nomadic tribes who wanted to overwhelm the authority of the people of Mecca and Medina. They refuse to recognize the